Ohio's Critical Analysis of Evolution

Critical Evaluation of Evolution ^ | March 2004 | Ohio State Board of Education

[Fester Chugabrew]

As long as "infinity" remains an abstract rather than concrete (i.e., with evidence) concept, it is not rational to invoke it scientific research.

Based on your experience and knowledge of the universe, which is more simple to postulate as having a basis in reality, NOTHINGs or WHOs?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The facts would force you to invent evolution. There's just no way around it.

You you would rather I take your word for it than study it for myself. Typical elitist BS. The folks in Ohio seem to have a different attitude.

[Fester Chugabrew]

As long as "infinity" remains an abstract rather than concrete (i.e., with evidence) concept, it is not rational to invoke it scientific research.

My question to you was not whether infinity is an abstract concept, only whether it is "anti-rational."

[Junior]

It is anti-rational when used as a tenet in scientific research in that it cannot be measured and there is no evidence of its existence.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . and there is no evidence of its existence.

Why would mathemeticians employ a concept and symbol for something that does not exist?
Is infinity beyond comprehension, study, and use only because it is not tangible?
Is infinity totally beyond reason?
Does infinity have any basis in reality at all?
Which is more reasonable to assume exists, infinity or NOTHING?

If there really is such thing as a WHO, how would you expect/predict it to manifest itself, by CHAOS or by DESIGN?

I am able to collect and organize data by the simple, unaided eye and conclude, when I read your posts, that there is a WHO at the other end of cyberspace communicating with me. Or is it more resonable to assume at first that there is NOTHING behind that data seen by my eyes?

But can I put that WHO under the microscope or place it in front of everyone to see? No, because you are more than a physical body. But I've still arrived at my conclusion by gathering and organizing data, and it is not at all an "anti-rational" conclusion.

Now, if someone were to propose that they have a series of tests or experiments that would make the WHO/consciousness more visible, or understandable, would you snarl down your snoot at them because it is "impossible" to place it under "scientific" examination? If so, you would not make a good scientist.

[Junior]

Why would mathemeticians employ a concept and symbol for something that does not exist?

Because it is useful in mathematics. However, it doesn't exist in nature. That is why it is an abstract, rather than concrete, concept.

[Elsie]

Invoking a supernatural cause without evidence is the very definition of "anti-rational."

Nie reply, but it doesn't address my statement:if you're a Christian, you believe that "Our GOD is one God" and none came before or after Him.

[Elsie]

Everything we know about...

Aye... there's the rub....

---

If we assume that "Everything we know" is "Everything there IS to know..." about something, we are going to be in trouble if we build upon an inadequate foundation.

[Elsie]

...and it doesn't smack of childish anthropomorphization.

I guess ADULTS that do this would be made to sit in the orner until they promise to be good?

[ElizabethP]

if you're a Christian, you believe that "Our GOD is one God" and none came before or after Him.

And if you're a Muslim, you believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed was the true prophet.

[ElizabethP]

Did I hear "book burnings"? I'll bring the hot dogs and marshmellows.

[Elsie]

I salute you!

This fine post should silence BOTH sides!!!

[ElizabethP]

Creationists assume "intelligent design" was the causative event because the evidence is visible even to the naked eye of a two-year-old.

What is the evidence outside of the the tendency of creationists to marvel at the world and simply tell themselves, "God must have done this."

for without a maker there can be no discoverer nor anything TO discover.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? This is belief rooted only in religious dogma.

[Junior]

What I believe and what I can invoke in scientific research are two different things.

[Junior]

Welcome aboard.

[Elsie]

My "C" key is sticking: is that a 'sign' or WHAT!! ;^)

[Elsie]

And.... he believes the statement I posted, too!

[longshadow]

elite placemarker

[Elsie]

This is belief rooted only in religious dogma.

As opposed to.....

....belief rooted only in ANTI-religious dogma.

[PatrickHenry]

I think I love you.